leader

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It precisely describes the geometric relationship between the leader arrow and text placement, which is the key behavioral trait for a drawing annotation tool. It does not discuss side effects, but for a simple creation command this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Leader arrow') and then explains coordinate semantics without wasted words. It is appropriately concise and readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple annotation tool, the description covers purpose, parameter roles, and a usage example, making it reasonably complete. It omits potential details like coordinate system or units, but these are likely implicit in a drawing context, and the presence of an output schema (though not shown) reduces the need to explain return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly maps x,y to the feature, end_x,end_y to the text location, and text to the callout content, adding meaningful semantics to all five parameters beyond their bare names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as creating a leader arrow annotation, specifying that it points at (x,y) and places text at (end_x,end_y). It also provides a concrete example, '4x D10', which distinguishes it from generic draw or dimension tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'For callouts like 4x D10' gives a specific use case, implying when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would be helpful given sibling tools like dimension and text commands.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.